Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    If Eric's new note (it replaces 99.0) receives the same degree of
    attention as did its predecessor, the discussion will become very
    lively.  Please be certain to address the content of the note only. 
    Any violation of 1.7/1.15, letter or spirit, will be deleted at once.

    I find it very inappropriate that this analogy be persued unless the
    statistics are valid. If EDP's representations were true, then it would
    seem fair that the statements alarm people. As a black person, I would
    have to examine this and deal with it.
    
    BUT, EDP's reprinting with substitute words makes an utter mockery of
    some of the very specific issues at hand with male on female crime,
    namely that the aggressors are typically known by and TRUSTED by the
    victims. This is simply not the case with "black on white" crime.
    
    It is hard to read the content of that lengthy note without even once
    questioning its purpose, which seems to be an attempt to point out that
    some men may be offended by the anger with which some women are dealing with
    male on female crime, and a tendency some women have to make
    generalities.
    
    I hope, thus, that women who are pissed at men who commit violent
    crimes against women call them mcaw's: men commiting crimes against
    women. And refer to them as such with enough frequency so that
    mild-mannered innocent men who have nothing to do with all of this MCAW
    business will not take offense and go screaming off to Personnel and
    get the file shut down just because women want to voice their anger
    about the frequency with which we get f*cked over, and how often it is
    a man who commits the crime.
    

    

    I reread this. And now I'm even more thoroughly disgusted with the base
    note, and its implications, and its twisted logic. And I have every
    intention of making the reasons for my disgust apparent.    
    
>>  Look at what is below and ask yourself these questions:  If *YOU* had
>>  written these things about blacks, would you consider it disgusting?
>>  How would you expect blacks to react?  Is what you said true or fair? 
>>  Would a black person be justified in taking offense?  The answers to
>>  those questions about these notes apply to the notes you did write --
>>  the notes you wrote say the same things about men that these notes say
>>  about blacks.
    
    
    Okay, lets assume that I was able to approach this with an open mind.
    The next thing I see is a bunch of statistics that are very clear about
    the rate of black crime. However, it does not point out whether this is
    black on black crime, or black on white crime. Since the topic of 78.0
    is about male on female crime, it seems to me that we're comparing
    apples to fruit here. And that pisses me off.
    
    
       >>   WHY is there so much black violence?  Are the stars in a
       >>   strange alignment that somehow is exacerbating blacks'
       >>   aberrant behaviors or what?
          
    Now  this statement is taken out of context. In 78.0, Nancy gave a
    listing of crimes in one week. She then made an astrological, albeit
    snide, reference. The statistics presented in THIS topic are not
    comparable. Thus this analogy is inappropriate. On the other hand,
    the first question is REASONABLE. Hands up folks, who's working on a
    solution???
    
    >>      How come almost EVERY type of crime is committed more
    >>     frequently by blacks?  What would a Martian think of blacks
    >>      after looking at these statistics?
          
      In this case, the base note is again twisted. In 78.*, the author
    points out that the representation of women in newspapers is ONLY as
    victims, and asks what a Martian would think of WOMEN. Indicating that
    the media portrays women as victims far more than we are portrayed as
    able-bodied individuals of accomplishment. Once again, the analogy,
    along with being incorrect and backwards, is inappropriate. On the
    other hand, what WOULD a Martian think if in fact blacks were not
    represented in the media as anything but thugs??? Draw your own
    conclusions about the media, 'cuz it sure ain't true. 
    
    
    >>      I am SICK of reading about people as victims.  I am tired of being
    >>      left in tears after reading and realizing how often people are
    >>      murdered by the "blacks" in their lives or how many people now have
    >>      to live with the memory of an utterly terrorizing experience
    >>      because of VIOLENT BLACKS.
    
      This analogy is most laughable. How many blacks do you think are in
    the average white person's life anyway? Is YOUR best friend black? Your
    next-door-neighbor, perhaps? Do you really think one of these people is
    going to KILL you? ROB you? Get a clue, folks, its not like that. Black
    Americans who commit the majority of crimes live in a whole different
    world, and don't spend that much time venturing out to prey on innocent
    white folk, despite what Charles Stuart might have you believe. And
    Lord knows with our slanted justice systems, those nig***s are caught
    pretty quick. Plenty of you are hoping for the death penalty, and we
    know that the proportion of hides that will fry is gonna be high on the
    black side. 
    
    Bottom line: the typical person who experiences "black violence" is not
    experiencing an isolated incident. They are experiencing a part of
    life, one which is, or at least should be, so abhorrent to the rest of
    us that we would work toward eradicating such lifestyles rather than to 
    leave fellow human beings in such squalor of existence.   

    >>      __WHY__ can't more people successfully fight back??
          
    Bernie Goetz did. I hope you're proud of that. 'cuz after that we had
    Bensonhurst. "People" so convinced that blacks are the root of evil
    that they would kill a couple of kids for trying to find a f***in'
    TELEPHONE.  
    
    This line is the most ridiculous. Do you see women, IN DROVES, turning
    on their husbands, sons, fathers, uncles, and renouncing them as evil?
    Do you see marriages on a sharp decline because women want nothing to
    do with men? Do you see women systematically cutting men out of the
    picture? NO. But that's how whites fight back against blacks. They
    simply cut them out of the picture. Force them to have no future. Let
    them turn their violence on each other. 
    
    The base note IGNORES the fundamental problem of the male on female
    crime issue, i.e. its VERY close to home. "Fight". What a wonderful
    word. How do women fight their loved ones? How do women fight their
    "established protectors"? How do women fight those with "unalienable
    rights" to which they were denied until the 1920's? 
    
    And somebody tell me how black on white crime could POSSIBLY be
    analogous to this situation?    
    
    
    >>      Why does it have to be this way.
                                
                                    
      This is a very good question. Nancy is one woman who believes in
    defending herself. She is also NOT a woman to exclude men from her
    life. So, she is working on a solution to preventing violence to her
    person while still maintaining relationships of trust with men.
    
    Turn THAT into an analogy, why don't you. 'Cuz that's the real deal.
    Not this bullsh*t "plug-in-a-word" stuff.

    For those of you who didn't want to sift through my lengthy note, here
    is the short version.
    
    There is an underlying, implicit fact to 78.0:
    
    Most women love men, and wish to continue to love men and have men they
    can trust in their lives, as husbands, lovers, sons, fathers, friends. But 
    they also wish to put an end to male violence or at least successfully
    defend themselves from it.
    
    
    Now, when you can take THAT sentence, and stick the words black and
    white in it, then there's a case to be made. Otherwise, the entire
    basenote is an exercise in ratholing. To put it VERY nicely.
    
    Lauren Foster

    
    re: .2
    
    I tend to believe that EDP's statics are true: I have seen similar
    statistics published many times. Speaking as a white male, though, 
    I have to agree with your assessment 100% starting with the 
    "BUT, EDP's reprinting....". 
    The black/white violence analogy would "hold more water" if the 
    black/white population percentages were 50/50, and the white victims
    knew their assailants, and the white victims were nearly all smaller 
    than their black assailants, and their black assailants had shown
    a history of dominance (read into this whatever you will... 
    political/societal/sexual) over whites, etc., etc., etc.
    
    EDP's analogy brings to light a black-violence problem... but that is
    all. 
    
    Doug
    

>>They say unfair, untrue, and hurtful things.
    
    
    This seems to be the crux of the matter. Okay, so go back and read
    288.2. 
    
    Much as I would LOVE to state how I *really* feel about this
    revelation, Maggie has set my note hidden, so I guess I'll have to
    rephrase it in a more politically correct fashion.
    
    EDP, there are two ways of going about creating change. There are
    positive ways and negative ways. It has been demonstrated throughout
    the history of this notes file that its members respond best when they
    are asked to consider something based on personal experience and
    empathy. They are less inclined to do a complete about-face based on a
    stream of logic that is wholly irrelevant to their discussion. You
    chose to use the second option. And this is not the first time you've
    made such a choice. I don't know why you don't try the first option.
    It DOES work.
    
    
    But you didn't.
    
    Staying "politically correct", I will reiterate why *I* object to the
    basenote and this topic.
    
    Topic #78 can be likened to catharsis, a phrase coined by Freud in the
    1800's refering to re-enactment of emotional situations while under
    hypnosis. Its purpose is to release some of the psychological
    discomfort being experienced by the patient, or as from the Greek
    translation, "to clean out, or purge".
    
    Thus, it is logical that topic #78 would consist of several emotional
    responses. Emotional responses are not always accurate. What you have
    noted about the topic is a tendency toward generalization. But what you
    are giving NO weight to is the psychological benefit to the author.
    And after all: this IS womannotes. Its topics are supposed to fall
    under the category of "topics of interest to women". In note #78, it is
    CLEAR that many women felt a need to express their pent-up emotions
    about that subject. If you take a good close look at the rest of who
    they are, which they willingly share in the file, and at the parties,
    they are not anti-male.
    
    So, in essence, what you are doing is reacting to women's catharsis,
    without accepting any inherent value in it. I strongly feel that you
    are overlooking something extremely important and of incredible value
    as you make your point. I think MANY other noters would agree with me.
    
    So here it is again: your point.
    
    
>>They say unfair, untrue, and hurtful things.
    
    
    You've now had your say. I hope that the women who are finding value
    in the catharsis that they experience in note #78 will be able to
    continue in that vein. Doug Olson has pointed out the disclaimers. 
    I personally see very little wrong with their statements, when read in
    context.
    
    What I do have a strenous objection to is the repetition of a tactic
    which was so disruptive the previous time that it caused a drop in
    participation in this conference. 
    
    My personal vote is that this ENTIRE string be moved to the Rathole.
    It has no relative merit in light of the need for a note such as #78.
    

    I have been in and out of here a few times, and something fascinating
    struck me. Several other women are on the net, and ALL of them have
    been able to ignore this topic.
    
    'nuff said.

    Eric, your point is clear. You think that the offending statements are
    unnecessary.
    
    I disagree. I see what you consider offensive to be an extremely
    effective way in blowing off steam about a serious problem. And
    NO ONE has said that they were hurt or offended by it. Not even you.
    (You have consistently used passive statements.)
    
    So, what IS the deal here? Are you saying that you're offended? Are you
    hurt? And if so, WHY are you going OUT OF YOUR WAY to ignore EVERY
    disclaimer JUST so that you can feel this way?
    
    If you are not violent, then you are not the object of their fury. If
    you insist on taking it that way, then that is your option. But,
    considering that other people of the same species are able to look at
    it differently, there must be something unusual in either the way you
    relate to other people, or in your ability to handle emotional
    dialogue.
    
    
    There is far too much value in their statements as opportunities for
    catharsis to request that they tone them down when NO one has come
    forth to say that they took offense. I don't know who you're trying to
    protect, but I know that you're definitely not being supportive of the
    female victims, in their NEED to be allowed to voice their anger.
    
    I do not find this position one which I can respect in any way, or
    support.

	The base noter seems to be contending that there was some inherent
bigotry in #78 'male violence: the rape of our liberty'.the technique chosen
to highlight this contention was controversial.The underlying assumption seems
to be that it's somehow healthy to develop an awareness of where our passions
ignite our bigotries instead of our reason in pursuing social causes. I agree
with this in most cases.But within the context of this notes file I admit 
confusion.

	If the goal was some pursuit of truth then the base noter would be 
correct in pursuing the course chosen. It may be more valid though that
the purpose of this notes file is to provide safe haven for women feeling the
need to discuss issues they identify as important, in the manner that
a consensus of women noting in this file determine, removed somewhat from
male input. If that be more the case then finding some truth through rigorous 
discussions (which these issues would really require within the context of 
truth) then the base note is highly inappropriate.

	I first noted (as akofin::macmillan -d-) in this file, as if it were
some degree of truth we were all pursuing through our dialogue. I feel more and
more that I  missed a critical distinction....yeah some degree of 'truth' but
more that safe haven.

What do ya think base noter?

MAC
	

re: 'ren

Well, I'm reading your notes in the topic, and enjoying them. I've consistantly
found your notes in womannotes enlightening.

re: Maggie

If you go to France, tell me when. Maybe I'll join you.
	Mez

    re: 36
    
    		That seems a little personal to me.
    
    MAC

    
    'men is the problem'
    
    anyone who is up on their english grammar will no doubt have been
    struck by the fact that normally one would say 'men *are* the problem'.
    
    since it is *extremely* unlikely that i would make such a blunder,
    it is more likely that i was, in actuality, trying for something a
    little more subtle; to wit, 'men' as a generality as opposed to any
    specific, flesh-and-blood men. in correspondence at the time with
    our dear base-noter i explained that my understanding of the topic 
    at hand was simply how to address the violence against women perpetrated 
    by men. it seemed (and seems) to me that the onus should be on the
    perpetrators to change their ways, rather than on the victims having
    to modify theirs. it is really irrelevent what percentage of violence 
    against women (or anybody else for that matter) is committed by men. 
    i know it exists and that it is a problem and that is enough. in any
    event, to reiterate, it is the *men* (real flesh-and-blood men) that 
    are committing these crimes that are the problem: their behaviour must 
    change; it is not the *women* (also real flesh-and-blood) whose 
    behaviour should change.
    
    by the way, i am perfectly willing to stand behind the transmogrified-
    without-permission (ask next time, eh?) statement 'blacks is the problem' 
    as long as it is agreed that we live in a *white* society and that that 
    society might have, for very obvious reasons, a certain culpability in 
    black behaviour that does not have an analog in male-female relations. 
    that is, we do not live in a *female* society that could possibly be 
    construed to have oppressed in any real way men as a class.
    
    

    
>	288.0, and the modified notes therein serve a purpose.

>	Shock value.
    
    I think it's kind of ironic to talk about shock value to victims of
    abuse. Somehow I suppose someone who's raped or beaten up knows the
    term "shock" already.
    
>	However, it seems many other people are desensitized to unfair,
>    unjust, slanderous statements addressed to males, especially white
>    males.
    
    Mmmmh. That may be true. Then again, no unfair, unjust or slanderous
    statement addressed to white males in general is likely to do any real
    harm considering white males are the ones who hold the cards. Anyway,
    maybe it's better to be desensitised to this than to be desensitised to
    the consequences of rape, physical violence, and the like. White males
    can take care of themselves, were it only for their God-Given Right To
    Free Speech.
    
    Ad

>    It is a permanent record, it is broadcast to many readers, it
>    perpetuates discrimination and stereotypes, and it hurts people.    
    

    One nit: this conference isn't broadcasted. This conference is a
    passive file, only readable for people who willingly and knowingly look
    up it's location, add it to their notebook, and open it. As I'm sure we
    all know Notes will not blast a file's contents over the screen of an
    unsuspecting employee who is only using his terminal to do his real
    job. 
    
    And I still fail to see how this file perpetuates discrimination and
    hurts people. This conference is meant to be a "safe haven", in this
    case for a particular group. Other groups have their own safe havens,
    or can set them up at will. If they need one, that is.
    
    Ad

	EDP, my friend, I think we're kindred spirits. We both seem
highly sensitized to bigotry. it wouldn't surprise me to find we
even have some commonalty in experience. I grew up in neighborhoods
where the Caucasians (like myself) were the minorities.Living in the
Mission district of San Francisco and doing some time in the California 
Youth Authority, just after Watts went down, largely shaped my hatred of 
bigotry.

	Interestingly enough, when I examine myself, I find I own a
lot of bigotry towards women. Hence some of my interest in this file.

	When I examine your notes and mine in this file I see a common
response pattern. We reflect the bigotry that, according to our perceptions,
exists. You know when I was taking part in *78 I thought all you would
have to do would be to replace 'men' with any other minority label and
the pattern of bigotry might be highlighted. Something began to temper my
responses somewhat though....pain....real pain expressed by women who
apparently had horrific experiences. No axe I had to grind or personal 
perception I felt just had to be imparted would have been worth 'twisting
the knife any further concerning those women.

	You've indicated you feel pain caused by prejudical attitudes.
You feel an obligation to combat it in all its human ugliness. I share
your feelings....but this is not the place. There are women here looking
for 'space' with primarily other women. There are also women here who've
suffered injury and are looking, in part, for some healing process here.
Those purposes have great value...I say we respect that.

	I'm betting that you,like me ,would rather do nothing.. than do harm.

	I'm trying to influence you to take your issues to SOAPBOX,
HUMAN_RELATIONS, or the like. These may be more appropriate places
to examine the human tendency towards bigotry....even our own.


MAC

    
    
    
       >They could give
       >a little recognition to the views of other people.  Do they have to be
       >angry and hurtful all the time, or can they allow another person to say
       >"I am hurt, here is what hurt me . . ." without jumping on that person
       >as an attacker
    
    
    EDP, I feel you need to look at what you write.  Perhaps if you had 
    said those very words, this would not all be necessary.  
    
    Sometimes, it is so frightening to be a woman in our society; it can
    be almost paralyzing.  Some people (male and female) deal with that
    kind of fear with overwhelming outrage.  Some deal with it by becoming
    agoraphobic - not a concious choice, a defense.  And yes, many times
    outraged people generalize.
    
    The thing is, almost anytime, *almost*, when a woman is asserting her
    right to be treated with dignity, she gets the "Oh.  You're one of 
    *them*" line.  Of course this only fuels the fire.  It is quite 
    possible to bat someone back into their "place" with words as it is
    with fists.  
    
    Unfortunately, in my perception, you are doing exactly that.  By not
    allowing woman to vent their outrage as they need to, by telling us
    that we are wrong to verbalize (fingerize?) as we feel we need to, you
    are effectively batting us back into our place.
    
    Yes, sometimes we fight back in the same way we feel we are being
    fought.  Yes, obviously, consensus is difficult to come by when 
    everyone is noting so loudly that they can't read anyone else.
    Sometimes, that is just the way it is.  
    
    I am a Quaker.  The reason (one of them, anyway) that I am a Quaker is
    that I believe in non-violence.  My belief in non-violence is 
    strengthened by the fact that I am a Quaker.  A very nice cycle.  I 
    am also, at one level or another, always aware of my vulnerability as
    a woman.  I have been abused.  To a lesser degree than we have read
    about in this file, but abused none the less.  The abuse has damaged
    my sense of trust more than anything else.  In 97% of the cases, the 
    abuse has come from a male.  Sometimes, it is very, very difficult not
    to generalize that "all men are bad".  I don't know how I would do it
    if the abuse had been severe.
    
    If you would just say "I am hurt.  Here is what hurt me. . .", the
    anger that you are responding to just might cool, and true discussion
    might follow.  I understand your frustration, I really do.  You need
    to be willing to see our frustration also if resolutions are to be 
    achieved.
    
    EDP, violence begets violence, whether it is physical, emotional, or
    mental.  Please don't take everything as an attack, especially this 
    reply.  It is not written as an attack.  I have tried to "hear" my
    words as I have written them, and to answer to your condition as well
    as my own.
    
    E Grace
    

    RE: .10  edp
    
    Only just this minute have I discovered that you've started this up
    again.
    
    First off, I disagree that the notion of "men as inherently violent"
    has been proposed as definitively as you've suggested.
    
    Second, I don't understand how you could stand to hurt or offend black
    noters in the way you claim you've been hurt (as a way to get our
    attention about this.)  The fact that you say this is only an analogy
    doesn't erase the fact that some black noters have expressed offense
    at your basenote, yet it doesn't seem to carry much weight with you.
    
    Third, I rewrote the basenote of 78.0 to INCLUDE the statements that
    men are NOT inherently bad, etc. (and I've had 149 replies to this note
    compared to 161 or so replies to 78.*), yet YOU'VE COMPLETELY IGNORED
    THIS TOPIC AND THE STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE BASENOTE.  Why????????
    
    Here's a copy of it, in case you've forgotten:
    
            <<< MOMCAT::PIGGY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 95.0   Male violence (PART II): Still the rape of our liberty.  149 replies
CSC32::CONLON "Let the dreamers wake the nation..."  60 lines  26-APR-1990 19:01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It appears that Nancy's topic has been side-tracked far past the point
    of no return, so let's try again, shall we?
    
    This time, I'd like to submit the following two premises as givens
    (in case we forgot to state these near the beginning last time):
    
    	   1) Men are not inherently bad.
    	   2) Violence does not have a hard-wire link to the Y chromosome.
    
    Let's continue the real discussion of this problem here, ok?
    
           <<< RANGER::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                  -< Topics of Interest to Women---Volume 3 >-
================================================================================
Note 78.0            Male violence: the rape of our liberty          128 replies
DCL::NANCYB "good girls make good wives"             43 lines  22-APR-1990 02:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          From catching up on one day's Metro/Region section this week:
          
               An 18 year old man in Dover, NH stabbed his girlfriend 12
               times in front of a UNH dorm.
          
               A 25 year old NH man was charged with raping 2 girls (ages 6
               and 9) and one 9 year old boy.
          
               The family of a 9 year old Connecticut girl who was stabbed
               to death by a mental patient that walked away from a state
               hospital is suing the state.
          
               A 23 year old man in Worcester admits to killing his 19 year
               old girlfriend.  He set her on fire at the abandoned Union
               Station railroad terminal Monday night because she would not
               have sex with him.
          
               2 Massachusetts women were killed this week and another
               earlier this month, all "allegedly" by their husbands who
               are under restraining order.
          
               Oh, and by the way, gubernatorial candidate Steven Pierce is
               expecting a tax refund.
          
          WHY has there been so much male violence against women this week?
          Are the stars in a strange alignment that somehow is exacerbating
          men's aberrant behaviors or what?
          
          How come almost EVERY  article involving a woman was about her
          murder, stabbing, rape, or torching.   What would a Martian think
          of women after looking at this week's local coverage?
          
          I am SICK of reading about women as victims.  I am tired of being
          left in tears after reading and realizing how often women are
          murdered by the "men" in their lives or how many women now have
          to live with the memory of an utterly terrorizing experience
          because of VIOLENT MEN.          

          __WHY__ can't more women successfully fight back??
          
          
          Why does it have to be this way.
          

    
    	This is the last week of my term at school, so I'm reading the
    	file on a very limited basis.
    
    	If I fail to respond to anyone, I'm not trying to be rude.  I've
    	most likely got my head buried elsewhere (in preparation for my
    	finals and work on my term projects.)
    

    	RE: .57  edp
    
    	> How can 288 hurt or offend blacks and 78 not hurt or offend males?
    
    	You're missing the point.  If you feel you're hurt by 78, how can
    	you stand to hurt others with your note?  How could you stomach
    	hurting others the way you're hurting?
    
    	>> . . . yet it doesn't seem to carry much weight with you.

    	>Please tell me where you get this impression from.  I apologized but
    	>explained why I thought the analogy was necessary.
    
    	Ok, now I understand, and I can settle this.
    
    	I apologize for what some women say about men in this conference,
    	but it's necessary (for a number of reasons that have been
    	explained already.)  Glad we got this straightened out.
    
    	>The existence of another topic without the bad parts does not make 78
    	>go away.  It is still there, it is still be spread to people, it is
    	>still be used.  The pain from that source is still continuing, even if
    	>there is another thing somewhere else that is not a source of pain.
    
    	The existence of your explanation about why you think it's necessary
    	to hurt or offend blacks doesn't make your offensive note go away.
    
    	If you can justify hurting others, then we can justify hurting you.
    	(Or, if you're the only one who is allowed to justify hurting others
    	out of "necessity," then please explain to us why you think you should
    	have a privilege that we don't have.)

    
    	You know, Eric, what makes your basenote worse is the fact that
    	you deliberately set out to hurt or offend blacks as a way to make
    	your point.
    
    	Hurting men is not AT ALL the point of women talking about the
    	problems we face with violence in our culture.  If you're hurt
    	because we're having discussions about the fact that many women 
    	are concerned for our own safety in this society, I'm honestly 
    	sorry about it.  
    
    	However, believe it or not, you are not at the center of every
    	thing we say or feel.  None of the discussion in 78 was an attempt
    	to cause you pain.  We were talking about our own feelings and
    	concerns.
    
    	Your basenote was not about the same honest concern.  You stuck
    	the knife in blacks as a way to punish us all for the hurt you've
    	felt here.  
    
    	How could you do such a thing?

   What a Topic!!!

   I find myself in a state of ambiguity here.

   EDP does make a number of valid points about Note 78. Regardless of
what many individual females here have said about how they are not saying that 
"all men" are violent, the fact is that other individuals, in 78.0 and other
entries, have said said so.

   Just because Maggie, for example, explains that she does not believe
that all men are violent (as in 288.3) does not mean that what she says 
represents the belief of all the women (or men) in this Conference. And
just because some men have objected to a perceived "man=violence" thesis put
forth by certain individuals (as in 78.0), does not mean that they are accusing
all the women in this conference of advancing that thesis.

   By the way, Maggie: Black women participate in violence almost as much
as Black men; the fact is that among all racial groups the men are expected 
to be more violent and for this reason tend to get caught at it more and are
more likely to be material for statistics on violence. The entire set of 
assumptions put forth in 78.0 is wrong; violence is becoming an "equal 
opportunity" activity. But again: just because you do not characterize all
men as being violent does not mean that no one else in this file does. And if
I, (or anyone else), argues against that characterization, that does not mean
that I accuse you personally of making it.

Unfortunately, EDP's method of expressing his points, in my opinion, leaves
much to be desired. It isn't that he uses Blacks as an analogy (despite the 
fact that I am Black, I really do not find his entry 288.0 offensive -- though
if I didn't know what he was trying to do I probably would have asked that it
be deleted as a violation of Digital and WOMANNOTES policy). It is that he has
really failed to convey the points that he is trying to make, and in the process is
giving those with the anti- male sexist biases he is targeting ammunition 
that they can use against him or anyone else who supports his views.

   In other words I agree with what he is trying to convey, but I find 
that I must side against him on this Topic. I have had many years of 
experience dealing with people's biases (against me for my race), and one
of the first things I learned about such people is that attacking them in
the fashion that EDP has elected to do will only justify their attitudes
and actions -- while pushing those who are less biased towards a more biased
viewpoint.

    288.0 has given those here who are sexist against males a stronger 
position in this Notesfile. It has also given those who are not sexist 
against males a reason to discrimminate against males in this Notesfile.

   All in all, I have a nasty feeling that any male (or female, for that
matter) who insists upon entering viewpoints that are contrary to the
kinds of biases that are so often expressed in this Notesfile will be 
paying dearly for what 288.0 has done here. And as a result of 288.0, the
possibility for conflict in this Notesfile has just increased exponentially.

                                                       -Robert Brown III

   Strange as I feel doing so, EDP, I must echo the questions Suzanne
has asked in 288.60 (more or less):

   Why are you picking on Blacks so much in order to make your point? You've
done this a number of times, and I am very interested in knowing why.

   I can see no logic in picking on Blacks, since you take the risk of not
only angering the female population of this Notesfile, but of making enemies
of Blacks, as well. From a strategic standpoint, the last thing you need right 
now is more enemies!

   While I am tempted to express amusement at Suzanne's point about note 78.0 
not being intended to hurt anyone (since she has not too long ago tried to call
me to task for entering notes that hurt women, however unintentionally), I
find myself agreeing with her, based on subsequent discussion in Topic 78, that
78.0 was not intended to hurt anyone. But your basenote, by making unpleasent
statements about Blacks in analogy to 78.0, was clearly designed to be 
offensive. It is also the latest in a series of similar notes which used 
offensive statements about Blacks in order to prove a point about female biases
here.

   You have indeed, as Suzanne puts it, "stuck the knife in blacks as a way to
punish us all for the hurt you've felt here".  I await with great interest
your reasons for doing so.

                                                           -Robert Brown III

    
    	Eric, if someone accidently dropped a rock on your foot, would
    	you find it helpful to grab the nearest passerby and deliberately
    	launch the rock at their foot as a demonstration of what it feels
    	like to have one's foot crushed?
    
    	Stop using blacks as targets for your vengeance against this file.
    

    	RE: .65  edp
    
    	> Because of the biases and prejudices of many of the participants of
    	> this conference, I believe them incapable of seeing how they are
    	> hurting men.  
    
    	Your own bias and prejudices has made you incapable of seeing what
    	is really happening here (and that your participation amounts to
    	the persecution of women for having our own voices about what it
    	feels like to live as a woman in this society.)
    
    	> Therefore, I need to show them a situation in which they can 
    	> understand ...
    
    	What will it take to make YOU understand that you did something
    	very offensive to a lot of people here by using blacks as the
    	targets of your attack?  We really NEED to show this to you -
    	how do you suggest we accomplish this?	
    
    	> ... that people would be hurt, and then I need to make them
    	> understand that what WOULD BE happening to the people in the example
   	> situation is what they ARE doing to men.
   
    	Some of us need to make you understand that what you did was worse
    	(because it was deliberate.)
    
    	It wasn't hypothetical - the words are there for all to read, and
    	you refuse to believe that anyone is hurt or offended!!
    
    	So why should we believe you (if you won't believe the Black noters
    	in this conference who have TOLD YOU themselves how offended they
    	were by what you wrote????)
    
    	Is there any reason why we should believe YOU are hurting when you
    	refuse to believe it when others tell you that you've hurt them?

    	RE: .63  edp
    
    	> I answered your question, please answer mine.  How can 288 hurt or
    	> offend blacks and 78 not hurt or offend males?
    
    	You don't believe it when people tell you that 288 is offensive
    	and hurtful, so why the hell should we believe you when you say
    	the same thing to describe your feelings about 78?
    
    	I don't believe you.
    
    	This is persecution of women and blacks noters, nothing more.  It's
    	the same crap our groups have lived through for hundreds of years.
    
    	There is no moral high ground to your position.
    
    	This is my last note in this topic.  Persecution is nothing
    	new to any of us, so we might as well be reminded about what
    	it looks like close up.
    
    	Knock yourself out, Eric.  I'm sure you will.

    
    1) 78 had disclaimers, 288 does not
    2) blacks are an underclass, men are not
    

    
    1) where?
    2) evidence?
    
    it just amazes me that a presumably intelligent person seems not
    to be able to grasp the difference between 'men' as a concept and
    'men' as actual persons.
    

    
    1) these are not disclaimers
    
    2) this is not evidence
    
    

    
    Re .76
    
    "Men are stereotyped passim in this conference.  They are denigrated and
    their feelings are not valued."
    
    A strong *statement*.
    Back it up with FACTS.
    
    Since when have you assumed to right to speak for all the men of this
    conference about how they believe their feelings are valued in this
    forum? 
    
    'gail
                                   
    
    

    
    
    re: .0 - Valid point. Both 78 and 288 are wrong.
    
    re: the rest of you, it may not be clear to you, and it probably never
    will be, its not right to talk about any "group" of people (women, men,
    children, black, white, red etc) in broadly general terms. The sad
    thing is I don't believe many of you will ever look at things rationally
    enough to see how biased you often are.
    
     

EDP:

   Thank you for your answers to my questions. Though they do not
completely satisfy me, I find that I understand your position somewhat
better than before.

   My feelings remain the same: (a) I still agree with what you are trying 
to convey, and support you in your attempt to expose the biases in this
Notesfile, but (b) I still strongly disagree with your chosen method (288.0),
for the reasons I explained before (race has NOTHING to do with it).

   I am, however, willing to entertain the idea that my projections were
wrong, and that your chosen technique may have some merit. I have learned
more about you since I asked the questions in my last entry, and I can see
more of a basis for your chosen method -- though I reiterate: at this time
I do not agree with it. I am amazed and saddened that some people have
responded to your assertion of men as being "second class citizens" in this
Notesfile by demanding that you present facts to back it up -- since earlier
in this conference you did present information (in the form of statistics)
that, had they been properly examined, could have proven or disproven your
statements (and those of others) about this conference. As I recall, you
were attacked and vilified then for the very facts that some noters have 
been demanding of you in this topic!

   In light of the above, I can comprehend why you have chosen this course
of action. While I would never use such a course of action (and feel it to
be more harmful than helpful in this conference), I shall observe and wait
and see what happens.

    I will be very interested in how this whole thing turns out.

                                                         -Robert Brown III